Is Islam a religion of peace , or is it inherently violent ?

[Arrian]

Japher

Monkey!

-Arrian

[Shogun Gunner]

Prolly no more than other organized religions if you are looking for this type of message, text, etc.

Christianily and Judaism are rooted in the same core texts with a lot of overlap, but neither are as fundamentalistic as Islam is today. It's just Islam's turn I guess, but I believe it's the mullahs, teachers and believers that are focusing on those parts of Islam that are violent. Rather myopically.

[GePap]

No, Islam is not inherently violent. The issue is how one interprets the words. We no longer stone adulterers in Christian lands and Jewish lands, even thought the Bible is pretty clear about that being God's ordered punishment.

IIRC, the warriors that brought HInduism into India swept aside the previous inhabitants and drove them south. Does that make Hinduism inherently violent?

[Japher]

Any religion that has, as part of it's teaching, a message that states that those who do not believe as you do are evil, vile, barbarian, or somehow not your equal has the potential to be dangerous as far as a nonsecular crowd is concerned. Religion incites deep emotions, anger being one of them

[aneeshm]

IIRC , Hinduism was a fusion of the cultures of the Aryan invaders and the Dravadian south , and it is not principally violent as far as the texts are concerned ( it is usually texts or tradition which determined the principles behind a religion ) .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Let me rephrase the question a little - is Islam principally violent ?

In the 7th century it WAS very violent, and very expansionist. After that it settled down, and individual states went there seperate ways. Many states were violent in the way that ALL states were violent, esp at the time. In SOME Islam was used as an ideology to justify state violence. And from time to time a more violent and fundamentalist form of Islam motivated violence beyond state interests.

In the 19th century Islam confronted modernity. With difficulty. Some attempted a modernized form, in which the notion of jihad was reinterpretated away from violence, while some attempted a purified, "literalist" version of Islam. Others were still distant from the modern world.

I would suggest Bernard Lewis, esp "The Political Language of Islam"

[GePap]

Universal religions like Islam and Christianity that say they bring salvation to all, and not just one group (like Judaism or Hinduism) need to adapt to local traditions to make it- hence all the different sects and large variations through the world.

For example, Islam in places were it arrived by trade (Indonesia, East Africa) is more moderate overall than Islam in places that it arrived to by the sword.

Another issue is the politics of the day and how religion is used.

Islam is "lucky" that the number of lives destroyed in its name remains far bellow those of Christianity- the Spaniards did a great deal on that.

[Japher]

Hinduism was a fusion of the cultures of the Aryan invaders and the Dravadian south , and it is not principally violent as far as the texts are concerned

Do a google search on Hindu and violence... As GePap says

The issue is how one interprets the words

any form of fanatacism (is that a word?) can become violent... nationalism included.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
for a religion thats 1400 years old, and has stretched over lands from Morocco to Indonesia, and Bosnia to Nigeria, ANY generalization is likely to be wrong.

What LotM said.

[aneeshm]

I repeat , the question is not whether the religion's history is violent , but whether the reiligon is , in principle , as a stated part of it's message , violent . I do not think Hinduism , Buddhism , Jainism , or msot other non-organised religions come under that category .

[GePap]

so your entire issue then lies in the interpretation of the idea of Jihad, cause most other issues like womens rights and so forth were all short in the ancient times.

personally, the idea of Jihad is easily interpreted in a violent way, so if that is the question, is it easier to interpret Islam violently than Christianity, then YES. Is it then inherently violent? No. It depends on the person doing the reading.

[Dis]

islam is a religion of violence. It was born out of violence, and it will die by violence.

[Thucydides]

I think warfare has been an integral part of the spread of Islam since it's begginning. However, I think up to recently Muslims had an idea of rules of warfare, of chivarly so to speak. Look at Saladin, who was more Chivalrous then the Crusaders he fought. I idea of War and Jihad are instrumental in Islam, but I think it takes a very obtruse view of Islam to justify the whole sell slaughters that have occassionally occured in Muslim countries.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I repeat , the question is not whether the religion's history is violent , but whether the reiligon is , in principle , as a stated part of it's message , violent . I do not think Hinduism , Buddhism , Jainism , or msot other non-organised religions come under that category .

But some of us dont accept the premise of your question. Religion doesnt exist in principle, apart from its history. Different muslims have stated different messages, and have all claimed to speak as the TRUE, the AUTHENTIC, voice of Islam. Which is REALLY the true voice? How can one who denies the truth VALUE of Islam in general say so? A religion which is not "THE TRUE RELIGION" can hardly be said to have one true voice - its voices are those that one observes in history, and all are equally "true". In the same way I can tell you which form of Judaism is THE TRUE voice, since I can cite the fundamental, TRUE, principles of Judaism that make it so(of course that would be confusing too, since I believe the TRUE principle of Judaism are fundamentally pluralistic, evolutionary one, but thats another story). I CANNOT tell you which interpretation, of say, Mormonism is true, since I see no fundamental TRUE priniciple by which to judge it, since i dont follow it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Thucydides
I think warfare has been an integral part of the spread of Islam since it's begginning. However, I think up to recently Muslims had an idea of rules of warfare, of chivarly so to speak. Look at Saladin, who was more Chivalrous then the Crusaders he fought. I idea of War and Jihad are instrumental in Islam, but I think it takes a very obtruse view of Islam to justify the whole sell slaughters that have occassionally occured in Muslim countries.

Saladin is a very notable expection to the trend of religious warriors being total barbarians. Especially in the middle ages Christian & Muslim conflict was usually very brutal and unchivalrous but Saladin was different so different even the cronicalers of the crusaders, people not noted for their fairness towards muslims, praised some of Saladin's actions.